Malicious Prosecution Claims Not Subject To Arbitration Agreement

The Supreme Court of Virginia found that an employment arbitration agreement did not cover a post-employment malicious prosecution action in Dillard’s Inc. v. Carol West Judkins and Dillard’s, Inc. v. Sabrina Dewalt. A copy of the opinion in here. Plaintiffs Carol West Judkins and Sabrina Dewalt were employees of Dillard’s, Inc. (“Dillard’s”), in the City […]

The Supreme Court of Virginia found that an employment arbitration agreement did not cover a post-employment malicious prosecution action in Dillard’s Inc. v. Carol West Judkins and Dillard’s, Inc. v. Sabrina Dewalt. A copy of the opinion in here.

Plaintiffs Carol West Judkins and Sabrina Dewalt were employees of Dillard’s, Inc. (“Dillard’s”), in the City of Hampton. In December 2001, Dillard’s discharged both plaintiffs after a co-worker accused them of embezzlement. Soon thereafter, Dillard’s brought criminal charges against both plaintiffs for embezzlement. The criminal charges, which resulted in the plaintiffs arrest, were ultimately dismissed after preliminary hearings. Plaintiffs subsequently filed motions against Dillard’s for malicious prosecution. Dillard’s brought a motion to compel arbitration, based on an arbitration agreement that plaintiffs had signed during their employment with Dillard’s. The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the circuit court’s ruling on interlocutory appeal that the arbitration agreement in question did not cover the dispute

In 2001, Dillard’s required all its employees to enter into an arbitration agreement as a condition of continued employment. The “Rules of Arbitration” required by Dillard’s ended with: “DEFINITIONS … You or the associate means the associate of Dillard’s, Inc., who is covered by this agreement and has a disputed resulting from termination of employment.”

Here, plaintiffs made no complaint that they had been wrongfully terminated. The plaintiffs complained that they had been wrongfully subjected to criminal prosecution after employment had ended. The Court found that if Dillard’s had intended for all disputes arising out of employment to be submitted to arbitration it could have used less restrictive language in the agreement. Further the agreement contained eight specific subjects that were “not covered,” one of which was “Criminal Charges.” Therefore, the Supreme Court found that the dispute was not covered by the arbitration agreement.

Contributed by Michael K. Wilson

Related

Insights from

Welter Law Firm, P.C.

Welter Insights is a comprehensive national employment law and litigation blog covering recent court decisions, new legislation, active cases and emerging issues at the local, state and federal levels. The articles, written by Welter attorneys, provide actionable insights into the rapidly evolving world of employment and workplace law.

Author

Welter Law Firm, P.C. is an award-winning law firm providing comprehensive counsel and complex advocacy on employment law and employment litigation matters nationwide from offices in Washington, D.C. (Northern Virginia) and Austin, TX.

The information provided on this website is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals depicted in images on this website include both attorney and non-attorney employees of Welter Law Firm, P.C., including paralegals, finance and administrative personnel. To see a photo directory of the firm’s attorneys, please visit www.welterlaw.com/people. All or portions of this website may constitute attorney advertising in some jurisdictions and should be viewed as such where applicable.